152885

==== PAGE 1 ====

Planning appeal: AP17/0028 Planning Application: 17/00350/B

APPEAL: AP17/0028 PLANNING APPLICATION: 17/00350/B

Report on a Planning Appeal being dealt with by the written procedure

Site inspection: 25 September 2017

Appeal made by Mr Andrew Roberts against the refusal of a planning application for the installation of replacement first floor windows to the front elevation at 6 Mona Street, Ramsey.

The site and its surroundings

1. No 6 Mona Street is a 2-storey dwelling about 50m from Ramsey’s East Quay. It adjoins No 8 Mona Street, another 2-storey dwelling, and there are many other dwellings nearby. No 6 has ten windows on its front elevation: five on the ground floor, and five on the first floor. All of the ground floor windows have uPVC casements with a top-hinged quarter light, approved in 2005. All of the first floor windows are constructed in timber, divided horizontally into 2 halves and opened by sliding sashes.

2. Mona Street lies within the Ramsey Conservation Area. The conservation area is characterised by an attractive mixture of buildings, the majority of which are traditional in style. There are many uPVC casement windows to be seen, including at Nos 8, 11 and 12 Mona Street and, indeed, on the ground floor of No 6 Mona Street itself (the appellant’s property). However, there are also many timber sliding sash windows in Mona Street, including those at Nos 9 and 13, and on the first floor of the appellant’s property at No 6.

The proposed development

3. The appellant proposes to replace all of his first floor timber sliding sash windows with white uPVC top-hung casement windows. As at present, each window would have 2 halves but, instead of having sliding sashes, the upper half would be hinged at the top so that it opened outwards.

The case for the Planning Authority

4. Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (IoMSP) requires development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of conservation areas. It also seeks to ensure that the special features contributing to a conservation area’s character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.

5. Further guidance is given in Planning Circular 1/98 “The Alteration and Replacement of Windows”. Category (b) of that document, relating to buildings in conservation areas, makes it clear that whatever material is used in the construction of replacement windows, they must have the same method of opening as the originals. This is not what the appellant is proposing. He wants to replace his sliding sash windows with top-hung windows.

6. The Planning Authority’s case is summarised in the reason for refusal quoted below:

Mona Street is an attractive and architecturally interesting street which retains many of its original sliding sashes. Whilst there are nearby examples of uPVC-framed casement windows, these are not successful in terms of appearance; further inappropriate windows as now proposed would not preserve or enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area.

==== PAGE 2 ====

Planning appeal: AP17/0028 Planning Application: 17/00350/B

Ramsey Town Commissioners

7. The Commissioners have raised no objection to the proposed replacement windows.

The case for the appellant

8. The proposed replacement first floor windows at No 6 would be identical in size and pattern to those being removed. The only difference would be their method of opening. It is accepted that Planning Circular 1/98 requires windows to have the same style of opening as those being replaced. However, the proposed windows would enhance the street scene better than the casement windows on the ground floor, approved in 2005 with top-hinged quarter lights.

9. In view of this, and the examples of casement uPVC windows approved elsewhere by the Planning Authority, the decision to refuse the proposed first floor windows at No 6 should be reversed.

Inspector’s assessment

10. I consider that the main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed replacement windows on the first floor of No 6 Mona Street would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Ramsey Conservation Area.

11. Ramsey Conservation Area has an historic character, enhanced by the traditional architecture of many of its buildings. Dwellings are close-knit and characterful. In the vicinity of Mona Street there are many kinds of uPVC windows; some more appropriate than others in their design and opening method. However, in my view, the inappropriate ones (and it could be argued that the casement windows on No 6’s ground floor with their top-hinged quarter lights fall into that category) should not be used as a benchmark for all future proposals. Indeed, they could be used as examples of what to avoid.

12. In common with the windows that they would replace, the first floor windows proposed by the appellant would be divided into two equal halves with no additional glazing bars or quarter lights. But the appellant’s proposal flies in the face of the guidance in Planning Circular 1/98 in respect of one important matter: the 5 windows would not have sliding sashes. Their upper halves would be hinged at the top so that they opened outwards. This would be apparent when the windows were open and, to my mind, it would draw attention to the inappropriateness of the windows relative to the age and style of the house and the historic character of its surroundings.

13. So far as I am aware there are no functional reasons why sliding sash windows could not be installed. Moreover, it is not clear why the appellant has chosen to have top- hung windows. I therefore see no good reason to disregard the guidance in Planning Circular 1/98. To do so would erode the unique and attractive character of this part of Ramsey. In that respect, I consider that the appellant’s ground floor casement windows with their top-hinged quarter lights should not set the standard for replacement windows on the floor above.

14. I have therefore reached the view that, in contravention of Environment Policy 35 of the IoMSP, the character and appearance of the Ramsey Conservation Area would be neither preserved nor enhanced by the proposed first floor windows at No 6 Mona Street.

==== PAGE 3 ====

Planning appeal: AP17/0028 Planning Application: 17/00350/B

Recommendation

15. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed. If accepted, this recommendation would have the effect of upholding the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application. If the Minister were to take an opposite view and decide to grant planning approval I have suggested a condition at the end of this Report that I consider should be attached to the decision notice.

Ruth V MacKenzie BA(Hons) MRTPI Independent Inspector

6 October 2017

Suggested condition if the Minister decides to grant planning approval

The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision.

Reason: To comply with Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

Approved plans (date-stamped 28 March 2017)

· 1:1250 location plan · Manufacturer’s information sheet